Page 5 of 13 [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

26 Mar 2015, 7:54 am

Fnord wrote:
a. Scientists have the most evidence that supports their claims.

b. The claim that naturalism is philosophically unsound has little evidence to support it.

:: The claim that naturalism is philosophically unsound needs the be revised to fit the available evidence.


Philosophy is not natural.


Quote:

"Scientists have the most evidence that supports their claims."

Bull SH**.

Scientists rarely skim the emotional life of human beings and are almost totally ignorant of it,
per the use of the very limited tool called the scientific method.

All human rational decisions are based on emotion, as even science now shows.

THAT'S IRONIC!

But yet science, STILL is not A tool
per the extremely limited scientific method
THAT CAN BE USED AS AN ACCURATE
TOOL TO
measure the experiment of human being
THAT is almost totally emotionally based
as a reality of the human condition.

Even John Nash, the noted schizophrenic,
AND possibly Asperger's LEANING MATH GENIUS
WHO ADMITTINGLY
HAS little to no
cognitive empathy, DID ADMIT
later in life that WITHOUT a full HUMAN emotional life
in understanding the emotions of others,
his SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC
METHOD BASED
game theory could not
be held UP,
as VALID.

He IS BiG enough to admit he is wrong.

There are not very many folks BIG enough

in this forum to admit THAT..

Sadly or with little to no complex
nuanced human emotion EXPRESSED

@ALL.

Quote:

"Philosophy is not natural."

Bull SH**

Human emotions are the basis for all human actions, including what is
abstractly defined in human constructs as an action in making the tools
of abstract constructs, generated in origination by
human emotions, LABELED AND defined
as Logic and Reason.

The scientific method cannot measure what is the fullest reality
of the human condition, which is the emotional life of each
human being that is a NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIENCE AND OR
EXPERIMENT IF one WANTS TO LOOK AT THE HUMAN CONDITION
IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD TALK.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS HIGHLY OVER-RATED FOR THIS ONE
SIMPLE AND VERY COMPLEX 'REASON'.

EMOTION IS NOT REASON.

THE ONLY WAY TO MEASURE EMOTION IS TO OBSERVE IT.

IT IS NOT A DISCRETE REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT.

THEREFORE PHILOSOPHY THAT CAN MEASURE HUMAN EMOTION
THROUGH OBSERVANCE AND GENERAL LOGIC IS THE ONLY REAL
WAY

TO EVEN FRIGGING UNDERSTAND WHAT IT

MEANS TO BE A HUMAN BEING.

AND THEN, one can get to the point of being able to figure out how to
live this frigging life without human suffering, misery, and the killing
fields of HATE, flowing with the blood GENERATED BY literal thinking
psychopathic
leaning minds who don't give an F about the emotional life of their


FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS,

MAINLY 'CAUSE THEY ARE IMPOVERISHED IN ALL THAT REALLY
COUNTS AND GENERATES UNCONDiTIONAL LOVING ACTION
AMONG HUMAN BEINGS.

AND THAT MY FRIEND
IS EMOTIONS FULLY EXPERIENCED,

EXPRESSED, SHARED,

AND VALUED AS SUCH,

ABOVE ALL OTHER MATERIALISTIC COLLECTING WAYS OF LIFE
EITHER IN PROVING SOMEONE IS RIGHT FOR ILLUSORY POWER,

OR THE KILLING FIELDS

OF

HATE GENERATED IN 'LOVE'
OF ILLUSORY POWER AND COLLECTING

MATERIALISTIC

GOODS.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 26 Mar 2015, 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

26 Mar 2015, 8:14 am

^ tl:dr ^



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

26 Mar 2015, 8:38 am

Fnord wrote:
^ tl:dr ^


Quote:

^.........^

6"tl;dr"6

This is what I look like when I 'REALLY' STICK 'MY TONGUE'
OUT AT 'FOLKS'..;) ButT ONLY THE PG-RATED VERSION...;)
NOT THE 'MIN' VERSION..@@@;)

Image

HAVE A NICE NOW.

I SURELY WILL WITH 100% FAITH IN ME AND 100% TRUST

IN THE GOD OF MOTHER NATURE TRUTH AND LIGHT

AKA ILLUMINATI.



"There are no words OR HUMANS bolder than me

IN REAL LIFE".

QUOTE BY ME,

BY A
WAY....

I WILL LOVE TO SEE
'THE FACE' BEHIND "one's MASK"..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 7:49 pm

[quote="Lintar"]

a) The scientific method - the process whereby knowledge about the natural realm is gained via 1) the observation of patterns within nature, leading to 2) hypotheses formulated to account for said patterns, which in turn leads one to 3) test one's hypothesis with the objective of determining whether or not one's hypothesis can account for the aforesaid observations. Hypotheses need to be testable, capable of being independently supported, and falsifiable. Evidence that is found, whether in favour or against one's given hypothesis, needs to be interpreted in the light of what is already known. 'Science' does not [i]say this and that; scientists, on the other hand, do. [/i]


No. You have omitted an absolutely vital part of this, can the hypothesis predict further discoveries or can it predict future patterns. omitting this completely removes creativity from the process. Eg Predictions based upon prior discoveries are vastly important to the further gaining of knowledge and for the further verification of prior hypothesis. The Higgs Bosun is a great example of this, we had the Standard Model which predicted the existence of the Bosun, and as predicted it has been discovered, if it had not the Standard Model would have disintegrated.

What do you mean by the highlighted part?



As for scientism this is an invention of your own prejudice.

For me the Scientific model is the best and most complete method of verification we have. Sure anecdotal evidence is useful, and serves us well. After all you do not need to understand Einsteins General Theory nor Newtons laws of motion to "know" that if you fall from a sheer cliff you will most likely die. But if we want to understand why this is so, then we NEED the scientific method. No amount of philosophy will explain the actual physics behind the event.

The Scientific method can only explain things and events that have a natural cause. If there is a supernatural realm that lies beyond the laws of the Universe, science cannot explain it. However it can and has explained many things once thought to be supernatural.

Therefore if a hypothesis cannot be falsified then is it not Scientific as it falls beyond the scope of science. Several points about this

1. Hypothesis that are predictions of already verified knowledge are Scientific as they have a basis in prior knowledge, experiments can be set up to test these hypotheses and eventually (Higgs Bosun as a case in point) they will either be verified or falsified.

2. Things like String Theory and other areas of theoretical physics sitting of the boundaries of knowledge are to a point somewhat philosophical although they have a basis in maths. These hypothesis are vital in the search for knowledge and require a great deal of creativity, are they non-science? Debatable, they are most certainly helping us to work out where to look in our search for reality. Most important in my mind is that they are based upon Math and prior knowledge

3. Speculation based upon nothing but philosophical reasoning is not science. For example the OP has stated that God is not made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe and therefore cannot be detected, this is simple speculation and an attempt to remove "God" from discovery by observation.

If you really think there is a better way than the scientific method to explain reality then please lead the way. But Philosophical speculation kept us in the dark for millennia. Philosophy has its place regarding ethics, morals, what is called spiritualism, but I find nothing objective about it


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 9:19 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
No. You have omitted an absolutely vital part of this, can the hypothesis predict further discoveries or can it predict future patterns. omitting this completely removes creativity from the process. Eg Predictions based upon prior discoveries are vastly important to the further gaining of knowledge and for the further verification of prior hypothesis. The Higgs Bosun is a great example of this, we had the Standard Model which predicted the existence of the Bosun, and as predicted it has been discovered, if it had not the Standard Model would have disintegrated.


Yes, I left that out, but not on purpose. Predictions play their role in this process as well.

DentArthurDent wrote:
As for scientism this is an invention of your own prejudice.


and

DentArthurDent wrote:
For me the Scientific model is the best and most complete method of verification we have. Sure anecdotal evidence is useful, and serves us well. After all you do not need to understand Einsteins General Theory nor Newtons laws of motion to "know" that if you fall from a sheer cliff you will most likely die. But if we want to understand why this is so, then we NEED the scientific method. No amount of philosophy will explain the actual physics behind the event.


I did not say that we do not need the scientific method. What I did point out was that relying on it, to the exclusion of all else, and to simply dismiss alternatives to it, was wrong. That is what scientism actually is. I am not 'prejudiced' when it comes to determining what is real, this being an accusation of yours I will not accept, because it is based upon the notion that I may have ulterior motives for writing what I do here. Well, no, I am not the type of person to do something like that.

DentArthurDent wrote:
The Scientific method can only explain things and events that have a natural cause.


Yes, but it certainly does not rule out the supernatural. For instance, the current gossip within cosmological circles that there may be alternative realities, a 'multiverse' so to speak. Is not this idea, by definition, supernatural in essence? Do not these other realities lie beyond our own and, therefore, beyond what we consider nature to be?

DentArthurDent wrote:
2. Things like String Theory and other areas of theoretical physics sitting of the boundaries of knowledge are to a point somewhat philosophical although they have a basis in maths. These hypothesis are vital in the search for knowledge and require a great deal of creativity, are they non-science? Debatable, they are most certainly helping us to work out where to look in our search for reality. Most important in my mind is that they are based upon Math and prior knowledge


I don't consider 'string theory' to be serious science. It just isn't. It's a joke. After 30 or so years of effort, what has 'string theory' actually demonstrated? Nothing. I'm sure 'string theorists' will disagree with my assessment of their non-science, but facts are facts. Why don't they just admit to engaging in philosophy? I don't have anything against philosophers, if they are honest with me about what they are actually doing.

DentArthurDent wrote:
3. Speculation based upon nothing but philosophical reasoning is not science.


Yes, I know. I didn't say it was. String theory is also entirely speculative, but you don't seem to have issues with that.

DentArthurDent wrote:
If you really think there is a better way than the scientific method to explain reality then please lead the way. But Philosophical speculation kept us in the dark for millennia. Philosophy has its place regarding ethics, morals, what is called spiritualism, but I find nothing objective about it


It's not a question of finding something that is better, but recognising that there are complimentary alternatives. Why is that so hard for so many to understand these days?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 9:30 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Evidence that is found, whether in favour or against one's given hypothesis, needs to be interpreted in the light of what is already known. 'Science' does not [i]say this and that; scientists, on the other hand, do. [/i][/b]

What do you mean by the highlighted part?


The first or second sentence?

Evidence is interpreted in the light of what is already known. Don't tell me you didn't know this! 8O

Scientists make claims, 'science' does not. Science itself is merely the method we use, not the beliefs we hold. A belief may be considered to be scientific if it was arrived at via the method. However, this, in and of itself, does not therefore mean that the so-called humanities subjects are therefore useless or irrelevant, simply because the facts they relate to us were not uncovered this way.

Clear?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 9:58 pm

Where has 'The Walrus' gone? Maybe he is busy, but he DID say that the cosmological arguments were useless and wrong, easily refuted and a joke.

Well... come on then. Refute them. Explain to me why I am wrong to even take them seriously. I expect a well-argued, concise and cogent refutation. Start with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, that's one of the better ones. It goes something like this:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR - that's the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'].
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

This is from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs ... nd-the-psr

Ok, I'll start off to help you along. Premise two is presumptuous, or at least it appears that way. Why must the explanation be God? Well, that is due to how the concept of God is actually defined in the first place. That is, it (not 'He' - silly anthropomorphism) has certain... 'characteristics', let's call them, that simply must apply if we are to consider the idea at all seriously, and if the concept is to have any value at all to us. For instance, it must contain within itself the reason for why it is; that is, it must be a necessary entity that is as essential to us as mathematical truths like, 'All triangles have three sides'. A triangle is what it is, and is defined to be the way it is, for that is how the concept is understood by us. (This is why it is silly to ask, 'If God is omnipotent, can he create a triangle with four sides?' Omnipotence does NOT include the ability to do the logically impossible). Mathematical truths are absolute, non-contingent, and are what they are irrespective of all else.

'God' must also, in order to qualify for the 'job description', be transcendent. The laws of nature cannot confine it, for the laws themselves were created by 'God'. God does not exist within the universe, for the same reasons why a painter will not be found on the canvas, a novelist will not be a character within the novel.

'An actual infinity of moments cannot be traversed' - J. P. Moreland. Yes, he is a Christian theist, but he is still right about this. There must be something, and it doesn't matter if we call it 'God', that really is timeless and immaterial, for our physical reality certainly is not. Saying that 'oh, it just popped into being from nothing', or 'we believe reality to be inexplicable'... well, both of these answers are just plain stupid, and I need not take them at all seriously.

So... God is the timeless and immaterial substrate that supports physical reality, without which there really would exist nothing, that is the ultimate explanation for all we know (because it short-circuits the infinite regress problem), and which cannot not exist, for it is necessary and therefore has no causal agent.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 10:11 pm

So if I understand you correctly God need not be sentient. Rather it just needs to fulfil a purpose.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

26 Mar 2015, 10:22 pm

Lintar wrote:
Where has 'The Walrus' gone? Maybe he is busy, but he DID say that the cosmological arguments were useless and wrong, easily refuted and a joke.

Well... come on then. Refute them. Explain to me why I am wrong to even take them seriously. I expect a well-argued, concise and cogent refutation. Start with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, that's one of the better ones. It goes something like this:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR - that's the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'].
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

This is from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs ... nd-the-psr

Ok, I'll start off to help you along. Premise two is presumptuous, or at least it appears that way. Why must the explanation be God? Well, that is due to how the concept of God is actually defined in the first place. That is, it (not 'He' - silly anthropomorphism) has certain... 'characteristics', let's call them, that simply must apply if we are to consider the idea at all seriously, and if the concept is to have any value at all to us. For instance, it must contain within itself the reason for why it is; that is, it must be a necessary entity that is as essential to us as mathematical truths like, 'All triangles have three sides'. A triangle is what it is, and is defined to be the way it is, for that is how the concept is understood by us. (This is why it is silly to ask, 'If God is omnipotent, can he create a triangle with four sides?' Omnipotence does NOT include the ability to do the logically impossible). Mathematical truths are absolute, non-contingent, and are what they are irrespective of all else.

'God' must also, in order to qualify for the 'job description', be transcendent. The laws of nature cannot confine it, for the laws themselves were created by 'God'. God does not exist within the universe, for the same reasons why a painter will not be found on the canvas, a novelist will not be a character within the novel.

'An actual infinity of moments cannot be traversed' - J. P. Moreland. Yes, he is a Christian theist, but he is still right about this. There must be something, and it doesn't matter if we call it 'God', that really is timeless and immaterial, for our physical reality certainly is not. Saying that 'oh, it just popped into being from nothing', or 'we believe reality to be inexplicable'... well, both of these answers are just plain stupid, and I need not take them at all seriously.

So... God is the timeless and immaterial substrate that supports physical reality, without which there really would exist nothing, that is the ultimate explanation for all we know (because it short-circuits the infinite regress problem), and which cannot not exist, for it is necessary and therefore has no causal agent.


That's logical and transcendent..:)

Interesting, how many humans through history

have come to similar conclusions, independently.

Obviously, in some way it is an inherent human ability, too,

to come to these similar conclusions about

existence.

And truly that's just common sense, for folks who have it.

But without a doubt, not all humans share that ability, equally,

AS documentation here does tell A fuller
story of that; I for one, have seen anywhere.

It's quite a challenge to communicate 'common sense'

here at all.

But I like challenges...

And truly as irrefutable fact and metaphor
THAT is the '8888 LB Gorilla' sitting square in
the middle of this forum, for now at least...

And heck no; that's certainly not directed at any
one person here, alone.

And only experience can TEACH THAT.

Overall, it's a so-called 'left-brain' 'limitation',

where math and verbal abilities often excel to greatness,
and interpretive skills associated with human 'right-brain'
potential often do 'miserably FAIL'.

I AM NOT A WORD PERSON,

overall, (believe that or not);

BUT HELL YES,

I AM A 'RIGHT-BRAIN', 'DUDE'..;)

Give me a complex abstract human

emotional oriented code, AKA human metaphor,

and I WILL break IT down..AND EXPAND IT TOO..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

26 Mar 2015, 11:05 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
So if I understand you correctly God need not be sentient. Rather it just needs to fulfil a purpose.
I suggest, Arty, that you are not understanding anything. You're flailing about looking for red herrings and straw men.

Whether or not the necessary uncaused First Cause is sentient or not has not yet been approached in this discussion, nor is it particularly relevant to whether Naturalism is philosophically sound or unsound.

However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

26 Mar 2015, 11:23 pm

Lintar wrote:
'An actual infinity of moments cannot be traversed' - J. P. Moreland. Yes, he is a Christian theist, but he is still right about this. There must be something, and it doesn't matter if we call it 'God', that really is timeless and immaterial, for our physical reality certainly is not. Saying that 'oh, it just popped into being from nothing', or 'we believe reality to be inexplicable'... well, both of these answers are just plain stupid, and I need not take them at all seriously.

So... God is the timeless and immaterial substrate that supports physical reality, without which there really would exist nothing, that is the ultimate explanation for all we know (because it short-circuits the infinite regress problem), and which cannot not exist, for it is necessary and therefore has no causal agent.
I think you're jumping to conclusions that may well be quite right but are not shown to proceed from sure premises. To logically prove something you must have a sure and certain premise against which to test it (as in scientific method) for it to be "philosophically sound".



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2015, 12:53 am

Oldavid wrote:

However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.


Please elucidate


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

27 Mar 2015, 2:00 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oldavid wrote:

However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.


Please elucidate
No. Let's deal with the matters in hand and first.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

27 Mar 2015, 3:21 am

0_equals_true wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
I suggest that any ideological Materialists who insist that any "proof" of anything must be empirical do not belong in a discussion of metaphysical things (such as logic) and they should retire to their sand pit, play with their sand castles, and allow the adults to get on with their conversation


How profound :lol:

Here is an idea: Instead of insulting others intelligence. You show how proof can be achieved without empiricism. Even accidental discoveries are verified, and this needs to be repeated to be proven.

In other words, drop the complex and have a reasonable debate.

Logic, such as deductive reason, is something that was defined by philosophers, but was never exclusive to them.
For one thing, I will contend that any empirical "proof" will have some element(s) of uncertainty (commonly called experimental error) owing to the very nature of measurements and the great variety of unavoidable external influences always present.

In philosophy, however, if you start with a certain, sure, (as in "Established beyond doubt or question; definitely known" (dictionary definition)) premise(s) and you make no errors of logic the result is also certain and can be another premise for another investigation.

Now comes the bit that is positively detested by egomaniacs who like to think that they can start with any remotely plausible assumption (premise) that will lead to the answer they are seeking.

The chain of conclusions/premises must come from, and never contradict some very basic premise(s) that we will call "self-evident". A basic self-evident truth is one where a proposition has only one alternative which is its contrary and that contrary is self-contradictory and thus absurd. The first, and most basic, prime example of which is "I exist".

Whoever can, or whoever will, think about that for a while.

I don't mind trying to put some of these basic common sense matters into words that can be analysed and understood by anyone willing to do so but I get pissed off going to some trouble to explain something only to have it dismissed with some fatuous irrelevant assertion.

I will continue if there is some intelligent interest in the subject.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2015, 4:35 am

Oldavid wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Oldavid wrote:

However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.


Please elucidate
No. Let's deal with the matters in hand and first.



Surprise surprise, once again when asked to back up a statement David refuses to do.so. this time it is for the noble cause of keeping a thread on subject. Thing is real excuse or not David always refuses to back up his claims.

No doubt if he responds to this post it will be some sort of asinine put down or a rework of the above pust.

Just pathetic David. You clearly do not have the courage of your own convictions to put the rationale for your beliefs up for public scrutiny.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2015, 5:03 am

Lintar wrote:

It's not a question of finding something that is better, but recognising that there are complimentary alternatives. Why is that so hard for so many to understand these days?


It depends on what you mean by complimentary alternatives. Are you suggesting that there are other methods of "knowing" that are verifiable without observation and experiment, are you suggesting that there are other methods to accurately predict future events, or to predict what should exist and where to find it? If you are then please elaborate.

If you are referring to anecdotal evidence, then if used in conjunction with what we know to be plausible, then I agree that we can get an idea from this kind of evidence. However if someone or a group say they experienced an event that appears to contravene the known laws of nature, do I think this should be taken at face value with no corroborating evidence? No I don't. to do so would be to ignore all that we know of hallucination, group hysteria, etc.

A good example of appropriate use of anecdotal evidence is in the field of herbal medicine. Whilst there are many concoctions that are nothing but snake oil, there are other remedies that although there have not been rigorous double blind studies, it can be reasonably stated that they work, Chamomile for sleep and pain for example. But this anecdotal evidence does have some observational corroborating evidence.

Every time studies have been done on supernatural claims, eg clairvoyance. They (the claims) have never been verified.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx